"Ah yes, as I've pointed out so many, many, many times in the past: you people made a horrible misjudgment when you assumed lack of enforcement meant the pirates had won the war."
I've never heard anyone claim that once, let alone "many, many, many times". When have you claimed this? When has anyone else assumed this? Why do you make this shit up?
Wow, you're really going to compare money with infinitely reproducible digital content? As the old saying goes, tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
"We have exceptions for fair use, but I'm not sure that applies to this case. I also don't feel that the use here was transformative. Indeed, I feel they were using peoples enjoyment of the games displayed on their console to better their chances of getting money."
I think the fair use claim is fairly strong, but whether it's technically infringement isn't the important point. What losses or harm have the game's creators suffered from someone else effectively giving them free promotion? I'd argue absolutely none. Contrast that to the harm from portraying themselves to potential customers as copyright bullies attacking others in the gaming community who aren't even direct competitors. Sound pretty damn stupid to me.
"My father was a general contractor for years. You wouldn't believe the number of times people came in, after the project was done and didn't like it."
Your comment leaves you father open to ridicule. You make it sound like he had many unsatisfied customers. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's what you wrote.
"Sorry, but a good contractor does what he's hired to do..."
I'm confused. Weneedhelp said a contractor should "Do good work... period... end of story", and you imply that's wrong and claim "a good contractor does what he's hired to do". How are these two things different? Who hires someone to not do a good job?
"...just because you specified a light pink toilet in your bathroom does not mean you get to change it at his cost after the fact."
If a contractor accepts a change like that at his own cost he's a terrible businessman and won't last long. This example does not help whatever point you were trying to make.
You should learn a little about the relationship between screen resolution, screen size, viewing distance, and the human eye's limited ability to distinguish individual elements, like pixels. Once you understand it a bit better, you'll realise how silly your comment is.
Can you please point to where anyone has ever said something like "creators are economically irrational and therefore should not participate in markets for their works." Links please.
"No one is being hurt in any of your FUD scenarios but the creators who aren't being compensated."
You must've skipped over this rather important tidbit in the article:
"...the lead singer from Harvey Danger actually noted that the video made him "incredibly happy" as it helped increase the popularity of the song.
His exact words:
"That Flagpole Sitta video made me incredibly happy, just when I thought there was NOTHING that could make me listen to that song again. A thousand thank you's."
Can you please explain to all of us how this artist is "hurt". He doesn't sound very hurt to me, he sounds pretty chuffed. He certainly doesn't should like he thinks he should be compensated for anything.
"And in matters of the law, your opinion is uninformed, obtuse and incorrect."
Exactly the same can be said of your opinion of culture. In case you're too obtuse to realise it, people really like creating and watching lipdubs. Your precious laws can do nothing to change that or stop it happening. All they can do is antagonise fans and customers. Y'know, the ones with the money.
When something like that happens, let us know. Until then stick with reality instead of fantastical worst-case scenarios which wouldn't strengthen your argument even if they were true.
"Dylan green-lit the entire package. Why? Because copyright gets him paid."
So Dylan is just a greedy old man who wants to make even more money for no effort, at the expense of the public domain that he implicitly agreed to provide his works to after a much shorter period of time. He has reneged on the deal that provided him income in the past. What a great guy, you must be in love.
"Nobody gave a flying fuck about copyright law until the internet arrived and tech decided to abuse it with parasitic business models."
Nobody gave a flying fuck about copyright law until the internet arrived and tech
allowed people to perform one of the most basic human traits, sharing of culture, on a much wider scale, which was previously only possible on a very small scale due to technological limitations and high cost. They started to give a flying fuck when they discovered how copyright had been grossly expanded and twisted from it's origins, and saw that the laws had been effectively written by the content industries to benefit them massively at the expense of both artists and the public. They also gave a flying fuck when efforts to enforce copyright resulted in huge collateral damage to other far more important natural rights.
"Let's say you offer to get rid of copyright laws but don't enable people to have enough food to feed their families."
Your suggestion is moot and irrelevant. Copyright laws are simply not required to put food on peoples' tables. Firstly, there are countless examples out there today of people making good money from their content without relying on the protection of copyright laws, and secondly, the music and movie industries are doing better and better despite widespread copyright infringement.
Also note that "getting rid of copyright laws" is not really even a serious suggestion. It's always been about copyright reform, both to wind copyright back to its original intent and scope, and also to better reflect the realities of our digital present and future.
"Not some twisted, made-up moniker you thought of today, but a paywall."
The definition of paywall is pretty clear just from the two words that make up the term. If you don't have to pay to get inside the wall, it's not a paywall. There's nothing twisted or made-up about it.
There are several spelling/grammar mistakes in this comment alone. Perhaps you should shut your piehole until you can type your own error-free comments.
On the post: Details Of Various Six Strikes Plans Revealed; May Create Serious Problems For Free WiFi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
I've never heard anyone claim that once, let alone "many, many, many times". When have you claimed this? When has anyone else assumed this? Why do you make this shit up?
On the post: Details Of Various Six Strikes Plans Revealed; May Create Serious Problems For Free WiFi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Actually that's not out on a limb at all...
On the post: Popular GameStick Project Briefly Deleted From Kickstarter Over DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can see copyright infringement
On the post: The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be
Re:
On the post: Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?
Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
On the post: Yet Another Study: 'Cracking Down' On Piracy Not Effective
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Popular GameStick Project Briefly Deleted From Kickstarter Over DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: I can see copyright infringement
I think the fair use claim is fairly strong, but whether it's technically infringement isn't the important point. What losses or harm have the game's creators suffered from someone else effectively giving them free promotion? I'd argue absolutely none. Contrast that to the harm from portraying themselves to potential customers as copyright bullies attacking others in the gaming community who aren't even direct competitors. Sound pretty damn stupid to me.
On the post: Contractors Lining Up Against Free Speech
Re: Re: Contractor
Your comment leaves you father open to ridicule. You make it sound like he had many unsatisfied customers. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's what you wrote.
"Sorry, but a good contractor does what he's hired to do..."
I'm confused. Weneedhelp said a contractor should "Do good work... period... end of story", and you imply that's wrong and claim "a good contractor does what he's hired to do". How are these two things different? Who hires someone to not do a good job?
"...just because you specified a light pink toilet in your bathroom does not mean you get to change it at his cost after the fact."
If a contractor accepts a change like that at his own cost he's a terrible businessman and won't last long. This example does not help whatever point you were trying to make.
On the post: The Lesson Of 3D TV: For 4K TV, The Key Is The Implementation
Re:
On the post: Australia Says 'Let's Update Copyright For The Digital Economy;' Legacy Industries Say 'Let's Pretend It's Still 1968'
Re:
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re:
You must've skipped over this rather important tidbit in the article:
"...the lead singer from Harvey Danger actually noted that the video made him "incredibly happy" as it helped increase the popularity of the song.
His exact words:
"That Flagpole Sitta video made me incredibly happy, just when I thought there was NOTHING that could make me listen to that song again. A thousand thank you's."
Can you please explain to all of us how this artist is "hurt". He doesn't sound very hurt to me, he sounds pretty chuffed. He certainly doesn't should like he thinks he should be compensated for anything.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly the same can be said of your opinion of culture. In case you're too obtuse to realise it, people really like creating and watching lipdubs. Your precious laws can do nothing to change that or stop it happening. All they can do is antagonise fans and customers. Y'know, the ones with the money.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, Lowery's back! That completely explains the bitter, nonsensical ranting.
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can stop there. :)
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Dylan is just a greedy old man who wants to make even more money for no effort, at the expense of the public domain that he implicitly agreed to provide his works to after a much shorter period of time. He has reneged on the deal that provided him income in the past. What a great guy, you must be in love.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re:
Nobody gave a flying fuck about copyright law until the internet arrived and tech
allowed people to perform one of the most basic human traits, sharing of culture, on a much wider scale, which was previously only possible on a very small scale due to technological limitations and high cost. They started to give a flying fuck when they discovered how copyright had been grossly expanded and twisted from it's origins, and saw that the laws had been effectively written by the content industries to benefit them massively at the expense of both artists and the public. They also gave a flying fuck when efforts to enforce copyright resulted in huge collateral damage to other far more important natural rights.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re:
Your suggestion is moot and irrelevant. Copyright laws are simply not required to put food on peoples' tables. Firstly, there are countless examples out there today of people making good money from their content without relying on the protection of copyright laws, and secondly, the music and movie industries are doing better and better despite widespread copyright infringement.
Also note that "getting rid of copyright laws" is not really even a serious suggestion. It's always been about copyright reform, both to wind copyright back to its original intent and scope, and also to better reflect the realities of our digital present and future.
On the post: Odd Logic: If You Value Your Readers, You Should Make Them Pay
Re:
The definition of paywall is pretty clear just from the two words that make up the term. If you don't have to pay to get inside the wall, it's not a paywall. There's nothing twisted or made-up about it.
On the post: Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be
Re: Re: Re: Poor quality writing on techdirt.
Next >>